Debate on Naturalism vs Christianity (Graham Oppy & Josh Brister)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 ноя 2024
- Link to Josh's channel: / starwarsawesome
Link to Professor Oppy's Academic page: research.monas...
Image used for saloon background credit:
ID 134626500 © Atmosphere1 | Dreamstime.com
Intro music and footage are copy right free.
Music in intro is Roundup on the Prairie by Aaron Kenny ( / contactk.. )
Canyon overlook video by Taryn Elliott from Pexels.com
Check out their work!
![NLE Choppa - Or What ft. 41 (Orchestra Mix) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/biOFASEgSOM/mqdefault.jpg)
Note: This is a re-upload from a past discussion.
Oppy's display of patience is quite formidable considering the degree to which Josh fails and bungles at literally every step. Josh is at the point where he needs to change his position or we'd have to conclude he's simply dishonest, or inept.
This is a debate between a patient professional and a nerd who wanted to do a series of book reports so that someone will tell him he's a smart boy.
I remember watching this when you first did it. I appreciate the discussion but I found Bristers approach and consistent misunderstandings of Oppy v frustrating and he would say all sorts of irrelevant things!
Josh represents himself very poorly here. Not only are his arguments fallacious but he is also trying to tell Dr. Oppy what the doctor believes instead of listening to the doctor about his beliefs. He does this to try to weaken Dr. Oppy's position and it's incredibly dishonest even though he failed to do so. His constant interruptions show only his discomfort for his beliefs being questioned or challenged and I find him entirely unimpressive.
Josh's entire position seems to be invalid inferences layered over unfounded assumptions.
That Josh guy is so antagonistic! He comes across really badly.
Ya his contact interruptions only show his discomfort in being questioned or corrected. It was pretty bad
OPPY: Understands that he doesn't know everything.
BRISTER: Doesn't understand that he doesn't know anything.
as a Christian I think Josh did HORRIBLY in this debate
Josh likes to make assertions without backing them up with evidence.
Thats what all modern philosophers do
@@Giorginho more like what all Christian apologists do.
@Giorginho
I think you misspelled “theists” as “modern philosophers”
@@loganleatherman7647
Well, a lot of metaphysics is quite similar: it can't really be verified or demonstrated. But I actually love that! Besides, I'm pretty sure that metaphysicians aren't as certain they are correct as theists are, be they garden variety ones or apologists.
The rosary didn't help him much. But we knew that it wouldn't of course.
Oppy never ceases to amaze
True. Brister on the other hand...Free will, divine intervention, miracles...and a hecatomb of famous citations don't get him ANYWHERE. He is just a lolly.
It was hard to enjoy this specifically as a discussion but it was a joy as always to see Oppy work.
Josh sounds like a luantic. I've heard igorant and arrogant philosophy freshmen who read the wikipedia page on hegel and carl yung and thought they solved the mysteries of the world, that sounded more coherent and reasonable.
Imagine asking one of the most respected philosophers in history if he is familiar with Hempel and Popper. What a clown.
I dont know if its ethical to talk to that Josh guy, as it's clear he's not playing with a full deck of cards. Worse, he's fairly rude.
Is this a re-post?
Yes I reuploaded it.
@@DryApologist thanks for that, didn’t catch it the first time
The clash of the ""Have you reads"" ????? !!!!!
I’m embarrassed for Brister.
Josh makes a huge mistake at 10:57 assigning Oppy a belief he doesn’t hold. Not only is it false that Oppy holds to scientism, it’s simply dishonest. (Not to mention an awkward definition of scientism)
38:00 Daniel Dennett is… a compatibilist.
This is embarrassing for Josh. He keeps straw manning Graham by suggesting that he's just assuming naturalism, and is therefore confined to naturalism in every new case. In reality, the complete reverse is true. Graham is saying he starts from those cases A-posteriori, and then FROM that CONLUDES naturalism. He's not starting from naturalism A-priori. Then he says things like: "Well Hume believed X", which has nothing to do with Graham. Then he bring out his giant book and quotes more not-Graham's. Who is he debating with? Graham defined his type of naturalism at the get go, and Josh just seemed to ignore it for over an hour....lol.
Seems John listens to respond, not understand, while also having no original thoughts
I like my own label. Ozienism! Lol
Is Josh... like... okay?
Oppy looks good with long hair.
Thank you for this interesting discussion. I would have been interested in Dr Oppy s explanation further on human relationships from a naturalistic pov. Josh should have given more rope perhaps. I agree with Josh that meaning cannot be reduced and therefore cannot be produced my purposeless models. I
Appreciated the references from Josh and Dr Oppy raised my genuine interest in his book. If I only had time...
I disagree with Graham that we couldn't theoretically reduce "morality" to physical facts if we knew enough about neurobiology.
Poorly moderated, mostly Josh’s voice was apparent. Graham politely refused to, and respectfully avoided responding to derogatory remarks. It appeared Graham just wanted out at the end.
How was it poorly moderated?
@@DryApologist it wasn’t.
Great discussion
Josh is a brutal bore
Yikes